God

[ElanJo]

For every argument, there is a counter argument.

For every "God debunkle" there is creationist scientist who debunks the debunkle.

Atheism V Christianity (or religion) you have two great arguments, that if you actually argue, will go around in circles for eternity, no one will change their mind and you get two very angry people at the end of it.

I've always been a cynic of religion. had the 'if i cant see it it doesnt exist' kind of thinking.
but i became a Christian a few years ago after a lot of reading.

I think for an atheist to say that religion is impossible is completely ignorant. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been creationists (Newton, Keplar, Boyle, Einstein, just to name a few).

you can find issues with both sides of the argument, and at the end of the day you need to do your own reading, of both sides of the argument, and decide for yourself what is MOST reasonable and makes MOST sense.

To me, I feel there has to have been a creator, even just by looking at how our body functions. It works way to well. Look at the eyeball, or the blood clotting system. Also look at things like DNA structure, philosophy etc i think are testament to creationism.
I'm not going to go into any super fancy things, becuase someone will come on here and we can argue for the next year about it, but if you are truly interested in finding out whats true you will do the reading yourself.

Some good refernces would be Ravi Zacharias, or Stephen C Myers (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mytruthproject.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mytruthproject.org</a>, etc. Both very smart men.

A great book to read is called "Good, bad or indifferent?" was written by Greg graffin (singer of bad religion) and a creationist scientist. It is all their emails about science, religion etc put into a book. definately worth the read.

A real life creationist? wow, oh and you bring up the eye and the blood clotting system aswell! No mention of "irreducible complexity" tho :( I feel half cheated.

I'm kind of sad now that I won't be around until later on.

PS. Are you a Young Earth Creationist ?

 

[Jimma]

For every argument, there is a counter argument.

For every "God debunkle" there is creationist scientist who debunks the debunkle.

Atheism V Christianity (or religion) you have two great arguments, that if you actually argue, will go around in circles for eternity, no one will change their mind and you get two very angry people at the end of it.

I've always been a cynic of religion. had the 'if i cant see it it doesnt exist' kind of thinking.
but i became a Christian a few years ago after a lot of reading.

I think for an atheist to say that religion is impossible is completely ignorant. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been creationists (Newton, Keplar, Boyle, Einstein, just to name a few).

you can find issues with both sides of the argument, and at the end of the day you need to do your own reading, of both sides of the argument, and decide for yourself what is MOST reasonable and makes MOST sense.

To me, I feel there has to have been a creator, even just by looking at how our body functions. It works way to well. Look at the eyeball, or the blood clotting system. Also look at things like DNA structure, philosophy etc i think are testament to creationism.
I'm not going to go into any super fancy things, becuase someone will come on here and we can argue for the next year about it, but if you are truly interested in finding out whats true you will do the reading yourself.

Some good refernces would be Ravi Zacharias, or Stephen C Myers (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mytruthproject.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mytruthproject.org</a>, etc. Both very smart men.

A great book to read is called "Good, bad or indifferent?" was written by Greg graffin (singer of bad religion) and a creationist scientist. It is all their emails about science, religion etc put into a book. definately worth the read.

A real life creationist? wow, oh and you bring up the eye and the blood clotting system aswell! No mention of "irreducible complexity" tho :( I feel half cheated.

I'm kind of sad now that I won't be around until later on.

PS. Are you a Young Earth Creationist ?

they were just 2 simple examples ;) but unfortunately as i said before, i refuse to get into any arguments on here, because it turns into a woman fest, and at the end of the day it wont make any difference. but its night time here in Oz and im supposed to be working haha.. so if i do decide to reply they will probably be few and far between.

 

[tonea2003]

jimma you are trying to put words in my mouth
i am saying there is rise in people who know think there maybe nothing spritual
and we are what we are due to a greater understanding of the world we live in.

Again, I'd like you to prove that there is a 'rise' amongst scientists that believe there is no God. You seem to continue to pluck things out of the air and yet, you're all about 'evidence'!

How does that irony taste?

i have never said any scientist believes there is no god, you are putting words into my mouth for your own gain in this debate

my evidence for a rise in just a couple of minutes research was the lists produced, yes i know it isn't the be all and end all and not conclusive etc etc

but what i am saying these sort of numbers and names you wouldn't have had say 100 years ago hence my reasons for a rise.
and that isn't so unreasonable to conclude to a rise

i thought you were a open minded person, maybe not

 

[Bigga]

Again, I'd like you to prove that there is a 'rise' amongst scientists that believe there is no God. You seem to continue to pluck things out of the air and yet, you're all about 'evidence'!

How does that irony taste?

i have never said any scientist believes there is no god, you are putting words into my mouth for your own gain in this debate

my evidence for a rise in just a couple of minutes research was the lists produced, yes i know it isn't the be all and end all and not conclusive etc etc

but what i am saying these sort of numbers and names you wouldn't have had say 100 years ago hence my reasons for a rise.
and that isn't so unreasonable to conclude to a rise

i thought you were a open minded person, maybe not

I am.

Of course, when people choose not to have faith there will be a 'rise' in other paths. That's choice. But one should study the thing one wants to dismiss out of hand, in order to understand what one is dismissing.

Not go by hearsay and other testimonies. Self evidence.

And I never said you said "i have never said any scientist believes there is no god", I said "prove that there is a 'rise' amongst scientists that believe there is no God".

Bit of a difference.

 

[tonea2003]

i have never said any scientist believes there is no god, you are putting words into my mouth for your own gain in this debate

my evidence for a rise in just a couple of minutes research was the lists produced, yes i know it isn't the be all and end all and not conclusive etc etc



but what i am saying these sort of numbers and names you wouldn't have had say 100 years ago hence my reasons for a rise.
and that isn't so unreasonable to conclude to a rise

i thought you were a open minded person, maybe not

I am. a matter of opinion

Of course, when people choose not to have faith there will be a 'rise' in other paths. That's choice. But one should study the thing one wants to dismiss out of hand, in order to understand what one is dismissing.

Not go by hearsay and other testimonies. Self evidence.

And I never said you said "i have never said any scientist believes there is no god", I said "prove that there is a 'rise' amongst scientists that believe there is no God".

Bit of a difference.

for self evidence you know nothing about me as to how i have arrived at where i am at. don't be so presumptuious
as for the proof of scientists ok i haven't cold hard numbers but neither have you the other way
but to suffice to say with with a distinct rise of secularism around the world which you can't deny, it would be fair to say that similar rise could be attributed to scientists.
which is what i have beeen alluding to
now is that more acceptable to you?

 

[Bluecifer]

This is a totally circular argument that will achieve nothing but bad feeling as both parties are convinced they are right. This will cause passions to rise and on-line feuds to be formed.
Save it for the RAGS guys. Agree to disagree and walk away!

 

[Jimma]

This is a totally circular argument that will achieve nothing but bad feeling as both parties are convinced they are right. This will cause passions to rise and on-line feuds to be formed.
Save it for the RAGS guys. Agree to disagree and walk away!

like.

 

[Matty]

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

The cat's dead, the box is sealed therefore it suffocated.

Next?

 

[Zin 'messiah' Zimmer]

Wow... ( You must see the glaring problem there )


BTW, can you define God please?

What? You really don't understand me?

I give you a box, that I've put pieces of gold in it and tell you its empty. For some reason you never open the box. After a few weeks of you having this box, i leave and never see you again. To YOU it's just a box with nothing inside it. The gold does not EXIST, from YOUR point of view. It is there but unless you open the box, it will NEVER EXISTS, again from YOUR point of view. So it's like the gold never existed, isn't? Only i know of the gold. If i forget of it, it is like the gold no longer existed.

God: an entity that is responsible for everything that science can't answer.

biggest pile of shizzle I've ever heard on the topic....... So you having seen the gold constitutes your belief it exists right? and those who haven't have to rely on blind faith? So answer me this, what did god look like on your meeting of minds? Does he like kfc or macci D's? Has he got a pikey caravan site? your whole foundation is flawed in that analogy as you don't have a clue if he exists or not, and like your gold bar there is a primary source needed, there isn't one in any religion the world over.

 

[Matty]

God: an entity that is responsible for everything that science can't answer.

Bollocks.

You have no proof of this statement whatsoever.

So, by your rational, before Newton "discovered" gravity God was responsible for it. After he discovered gravity God was no longer responsible then I assume? So, by your own rules, God is only responsible for things until we become intelligent enough to realise he isn't.